"We'll release it when we feel like it" amounts to "We'll release it when it no longer provides us competitive advantage" and is pretty much the same open-source policy that Apple follow.

Well that's not what is being said, nor is that how Android (a platform for which I do quite a bit of development (along with a little IPhone work)) has worked or will work. Android came out of the Open Handset Alliance and has matured as an Open Source Product. Honeycomb, was not written for phones, it was written on top of Android but for tablets. Thus this particular comment is of interest

Andy Rubin wrote:As I write this the Android team is still hard at work to bring all the new Honeycomb features to phones.

Emphasis mine. The point is, Honeycomb or Android 3, does not yet exist on phones. That is why it hasn't been released yet, it's simply not done. There is no phone that runs it yet.

So quite obviously, Android is still open source, and the competitive advantage argument is kind of silly when you work with and understand the APIs. Honeycomb is unlikely to house any major trade secrets at the OS level that are worth hiding. It would be quite difficult for it to remain open from a hardware and software stack level, if there was some dramatic shift. Plus, its feature set has been widely publicized for some time.

Apple is simply not open in any real sense. That's not a bad thing, it's just how they operate and the results drive and push other technologies at times, which is ultimately good. Being Open can be an encumbrance and Apple simply doesn't have to deal with that aspect.

"We'll release it when we feel like it" amounts to "We'll release it when it no longer provides us competitive advantage" and is pretty much the same open-source policy that Apple follow.

Well the competitive advantage parts are the apps that Google provides (Maps and the Market are two) which are not and have never been open source and if reports are to believed getting access to those apps will be getting harder to accomplish.

We live in a society where people born on third base constantly try to steal second, yet we expect people born with two strikes against them to hit a homerun on the first pitch.

Apache is a commercial-friendly open source license. The Apache license allows manufacturers and mobile operators to innovate using the platform without the requirement to contribute those innovations back to the open source community. Because these innovations and differentiated features can be kept proprietary, manufacturers and mobile operators are protected from the "viral infection" problem often associated with other licenses.

More interestingly, Google has take a pile of non-Apache code from Oracle nee Sun and released it under the Apache licence without permission.

Court case is at GrokLaw. Utterly unclear which way it will go but betting against Oracle on IP law has typically gone poorly for most people. The fact that Oracle own Java and are playing "hardball with spikes" bodes ill for anyone thinking Android is going to remain free (as in beer).

Similar issues abound with WebM. There's basically zero chance Google will win that one - the code will breach multiple critical patents in the MPEG portfolio, it's a given. Feel free to hate software patents (I do) but sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LaLaLaLa WebM doesn't have any video compression patent breaches in it because we never looked" doesn't actually work in practice.

knaughty wrote:Android 3.0, AKA Honeycomb has, as I understand it, been released on various hardware platforms already...snip

And all of that has nothing to do with whether or not Android is Open Source, which it is. Honeycomb has not been ported to phones yet, at least in the wild. Now that's not to say that manufacturers don't have their hands on early release versions to get their work started for their Android 3.0 phones.

Patent stuff is a whole different ballgame. All of these companies are sued constantly and not just by patent trolls either, they sue each other as well. If a judge rules that there is an issue, then Google will ultimately have to comply. Hell even Linux, the hallmark of Open Source, has had major issues with this sort of thing. It's just kind of the nature business with patent laws that are way behind the times.

Flex wrote:Well the competitive advantage parts are the apps that Google provides (Maps and the Market are two) which are not and have never been open source and if reports are to believed getting access to those apps will be getting harder to accomplish.

Correct, which is partially why the whole competitive advantage notion of not releasing Honeycomb is so silly. The other part being that the source code to their previous versions has long been publicly available. I don't think Google has any interest in making those apps open source though. I don't really understand how access will be getting harder, I don't think it was ever going to happen in the first place. Unless they are EOL'd I don't see why Google would, or even should make those Open Source.

Fridmarr wrote:I don't think Google has any interest in making those apps open source though. I don't really understand how access will be getting harder, I don't think it was ever going to happen in the first place. Unless they are EOL'd I don't see why Google would, or even should make those Open Source.

Fridmarr wrote:I don't think Google has any interest in making those apps open source though. I don't really understand how access will be getting harder, I don't think it was ever going to happen in the first place. Unless they are EOL'd I don't see why Google would, or even should make those Open Source.

Yeah, that's just Google controlling their brand, and Samsung probably blew that for everyone when they created the Galaxy Tab after Google told them not too, because the version of Android that existed was not designed for tablets. That does reference the Bloomberg comments though, which have been refuted as flatly incorrect.

I guess my point was why did you ever think Maps et al. was going to be made accessible and now it isn't? I didn't seen anything in that article that was dealing with either of those points.

Fridmarr wrote:I guess my point was why did you ever think Maps et al. was going to be made accessible and now it isn't? I didn't seen anything in that article that was dealing with either of those points.

I am not talking about accessible as in open source, but accessible in actual access to use and install from the hardware manufacturer/carrier side. If Company A wants to use Android in a method Google doesn't approve of they would no longer have access to the Apps or the Android name. It does appear that they're just stepping up on policing actual policies that have always existed but have been inconsistently enforced.

We live in a society where people born on third base constantly try to steal second, yet we expect people born with two strikes against them to hit a homerun on the first pitch.

Fridmarr wrote:I guess my point was why did you ever think Maps et al. was going to be made accessible and now it isn't? I didn't seen anything in that article that was dealing with either of those points.

I am not talking about accessible as in open source, but accessible in actual access to use and install from the hardware manufacturer/carrier side. If Company A wants to use Android in a method Google doesn't approve of they would no longer have access to the Apps or the Android name. It does appear that they're just stepping up on policing actual policies that have always existed but have been inconsistently enforced.

Oh I see. Yeah, if you want to have Google's products installed in your device, you will have to get their permission, and fork over some cash. At least you are free to architect your own solutions to those, or just license a competitor's (like Garmin) GPS service and Market (like Amazon).

That said, they have actually relaxed on that a bit. Very early on, someone made their own custom ROMs that were bundled with Google's apps. At first Google's legal dept cracked down, but after working with the engineers they decided that since the customization came on a product that already had that software pre mod, they could still use that software. So there is still a lot of modding that goes on in that vein, where you can redistribute those apps because the device was licensed for them. That's where you see great open source benefit.

There is certainly a lot of gray area with open source, and Android is probably always going to be pushing that envelope a bit as they attempt to protect their brand and prevent fragmentation.

Fridmarr wrote:Yeah, that's just Google controlling their brand, and Samsung probably blew that for everyone when they created the Galaxy Tab after Google told them not too, because the version of Android that existed was not designed for tablets.

So what? The whole point of Open Source is I'm allowed to do anything I want with it so long as I comply with the licence. If Samsung want to port Android 2.2 to a tablet, then I can do it. Because of the licence Google selected, I don't even have to contribute my port back to the "community" (AKA: Google).

Google didn't like it, so Android 3.0 is currently closed source.

Fridmarr wrote:

knaughty wrote:Android 3.0, AKA Honeycomb has, as I understand it, been released on various hardware platforms already...snip

And all of that has nothing to do with whether or not Android is Open Source, which it is. Honeycomb has not been ported to phones yet, at least in the wild.

You keep saying Android 3.0 is Open Source, please point me at the repository, I'd like to download it.

What has "ported to phones" got to do with anything? Maybe I want to port it myself, because I'm a major phone manufacturer. Maybe I want to put it something else entirely.

Oh wait, I can't, because Google is controlling their brand?

You can't, because Android is no longer Open Source.

Google say they'll open it up again later, when it suits them (AKA "When we've ported it to a phone")... meanwhile, you can sign contracts with Google to get "early access", AKA massive competitive advantage. The fact Motorola has the Android 3.0 source does not make it Open Source, beacuse Moto aren't publishing it under and OSI approved licence.

Why is Google the only company allowed to port Android 3 to a phone? If it was Open Source why couldn't Samsung or some other phone company port it to a phone?

Last edited by knaughty on Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fridmarr wrote:There is certainly a lot of gray area with open source, and Android is probably always going to be pushing that envelope a bit as they attempt to protect their brand and prevent fragmentation.

You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of what Open Source means.

Here's the OSI Definition. Go read it, I'll be referring to the clauses.

Google's control of Android means that Android fails to meet several clauses. Currently, they fail on (2) - there's no access to the current version's source code.

They've also pretty explicitly stated that they plan to breach (5), (6) and (10).

They discriminate against specific companies - you must enter into restrictive "early access" arrangements. That breaches (5).

You may not use Android 3 on a phone, that breaches (6) and (10). Google's instructions to not use 2.2 on a tablet also breach both those clauses.

The only "grey area" is Google apologists claiming that Android is Open Source because you can download an obsolete version that's missing a pile of stuff.

Almost every smartphone uses Webkit (Android does). Chrome uses Webkit, and it will be the #2 browser in a couple of years. Webkit-based browsers are the only ones with growing market share, and they'll be in second place overall (overtaking Firefox) by June.

Now...

Please name the major Open Source software initiative that Google has created?

Android? Not Open Source.

Google use Open Source. Google support Open Source via some hosting resources (code.google.com) and cash. They don't contribute much code though...

But Google are not an Open Source company. In fact, their incredible dependance on Open Source while not really contributing back to the community was one of the key drivers behind the creation of the new version of the GPL that is supposed to be even more viral (haven't checked what was actually released, I'll never use the GPL3 personally, GPL2 was viral enough).

Where's the Google version of Linux? Oh yeah, not released. All the other internal stuff that they developed based on and extended from Open Source technologies?

Gee.... not released.

Google are less open than even Apple. And Apple sure as hell aren't an "Open Source" company. But at least Apple use, improve, extend and contribute back to the community in several major Open Source projects. They've released large bits of their OS (everything except the GUI, basically) and tried to contribute a modern OS initialisation routine back to the community (replacement for init.d) and they've had the odd hit like WebKit. They've put a ton of work into GCC and contributed it back - Objective-C support plus a pile of other improvements to the related tools.

Google support Open Source in general via cash and resources, but release very, very little of the code they develop themselves.

Sun were an Open Source company, or at least they tried. Didn't go so well for them and now they're SnOrcle.

Almost every smartphone uses Webkit (Android does). Chrome uses Webkit, and it will be the #2 browser in a couple of years. Webkit-based browsers are the only ones with growing market share, and they'll be in second place overall (overtaking Firefox) by June.

Now...

Please name the major Open Source software initiative that Google has created?

Android? Not Open Source.

Google use Open Source. Google support Open Source via some hosting resources (code.google.com) and cash. They don't contribute much code though...

But Google are not an Open Source company. In fact, their incredible dependance on Open Source while not really contributing back to the community was one of the key drivers behind the creation of the new version of the GPL that is supposed to be even more viral (haven't checked what was actually released, I'll never use the GPL3 personally, GPL2 was viral enough).

Where's the Google version of Linux? Oh yeah, not released. All the other internal stuff that they developed based on and extended from Open Source technologies?

Gee.... not released.

Google are less open than even Apple. And Apple sure as hell aren't an "Open Source" company. But at least Apple use, improve, extend and contribute back to the community in several major Open Source projects. They've released large bits of their OS (everything except the GUI, basically) and tried to contribute a modern OS initialisation routine back to the community (replacement for init.d) and they've had the odd hit like WebKit. They've put a ton of work into GCC and contributed it back - Objective-C support plus a pile of other improvements to the related tools.

Google support Open Source in general via cash and resources, but release very, very little of the code they develop themselves.

Sun were an Open Source company, or at least they tried. Didn't go so well for them and now they're SnOrcle.

You have no understanding of Open Source. Open source does not mean you give up control of your software. That's retarded, hell your example of an "Open Source" company, Sun, is a perfect example. Android is open source, and it's a pretty major product line.

Apple is, by far, the most proprietorial major distributor of hardware/software there is. Hell, they even pulled native jvm support for java (I wonder why? ). Never mind how they control the hardware stack and every aspect of any version of IOS, and their treatment of Adobe.

Don't confuse, open with open source. I never claimed that Google was a master of open source. I said that Android is open source, which it is, and Google is more open that Apple, which they are.

Fridmarr wrote:You have no understanding of Open Source. Open source does not mean you give up control of your software.

I'm citing the freaking definition by the Open Source Initiative. You're using contradiction. Learn to argue. Since you either refused to follow the link I provided, here's an unedited quotation from the OSI:

Free Redistribution: The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

Source Code: The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.

Derived Works: The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

Integrity of The Author's Source Code: The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.

No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups: The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor: The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

Distribution of License: The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.

License Must Not Be Specific to a Product: The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.

License Must Not Restrict Other Software: The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.

License Must Be Technology-Neutral: No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.

Fridmarr wrote:Android is open source, and it's a pretty major product line.

You keep saying this. Please point me at the Android 3.0 AKA Honeycomb source repository. Android WAS Open Source. It is not currently Open Source. It may be Open Source in the future or it may not. Google state that it will be, but they also said it would remain Open Source and right now it isn't.

There is no definition of Open Source that includes no access to the source code.

Fridmarr wrote:Apple is, by far, the most proprietorial major distributor of hardware/software there is.

Citation please. I'd like the source code to the non-GUI components of Windows, please.

It's fucking obvious why. Pretty much everyone else switched to using Sun's JVM, forcing Sun to do maintenance and support of their own damn platform. Java never took off on OS X, and is basically dead on the desktop in any case because of "Write Once, Debug Everywhere". If SnOrcle want Java to be supported on OS X they can keep it up-to-date, same as they do for Windows and Linux.

Fridmarr wrote:Never mind how they control the hardware stack and every aspect of any version of IOS.

Are you seriously complaining about the fact that Apple control their own hardware stack and OS?

I'd like a copy of Google Linux please. Oh, wait, not available.

Fridmarr wrote:and their treatment of Adobe.

Do you mean their treatment of Flash?

Apple said "No flash on iOS, we think it's a buggy battery hogging piece of shit".

Guess what, it's a buggy battery hogging piece of shit which Adobe have been unable to actually ship on anything mobile. Apple were correct.

Fridmarr wrote:Don't confuse, open with open source.

Please show where I've displayed any confusion between these two items.

Fridmarr wrote:I never claimed that Google was a master of open source. I said that Android is open source, which it is.

I've already refuted the claim that Android is Open Source. It goddamn isn't because the source code isn't available.

nerk nerk Google say they'll release the source code one day!!! is not the same as Open Source. I cannot fathom how you can fail to see this.

Fridmarr wrote:and Google is more open that Apple, which they are.

Cite.

How?

In what way?

You clearly can't mean Google are a more "Open Source" company, because there's thousands of words from me in the last few posts proving that Apple have contributed more to Open Source than Google.

Where in the open source definition does it say when you have to make your source code available of a derivative work, under the OSI approved Apache 2.0 license that Android mostly uses? Oh right...never. Android came out of the open HANDSET alliance, Honeycomb was not written for HANDSETS, and I'm sure the select groups it was redistributed to, received the proper files as required. Honeycomb is being ported back into Android for HANDSETS and when it is, it will be released like every other version of Android has been. That is 100% in compliance with the Apache 2.0 license which is fully supported by OSI, period end of story.

How does free redistribution mean you can't control what goes in your code base, when you do your releases, how you version it etc? Every production version of Android on handsets has been released, so I'm not entirely sure what you expect to be released at this point. You want them to release Honeycomb, but Honeycomb doesn't currently run on phones so how could they put that in the Android code line? Beyond that, what you are saying doesn't even make sense from a software development perspective. If you had zero control over the work you were doing, how would you even do it? Your code base allows you to incorporate what you want and release it when you want. Google is making a new version and will release the source code with it when it's complete and ready for redistribution.

They aren't really doing anything different here than what they've done for other versions, they are just porting in features they released in a derivative work, which clearly follows under their license. Then there is the whole trademarking element which really gives them a whole other level of control.

You can't be serious about Apple not being open? Look at your own posts in this thread about porting OSX to other hardware. Can you install any software you want on your IPhone without violating the TOS? You can't even write what you want, in the language you want, nor distribute it how you want. That is a closed platform. You must get permission from Apple for everything, or violate the TOS.

And this nonsense about flash is just silly, Apple even got caught demoing a "great" app post the flash crackdown, that was flash based. Never mind all the websites that run great flash based apps.

I'm not complaining that Apple controls their own hardware stack, I'm just saying it's not open. It's nearly as closed as you can possibly be, you can't buy a computer running OSX from just anybody. Microsoft doesn't have to release source code to be more open than Apple, they allow hardware vendors to integrate the binaries with their hardware. I'm not complaining that Apple has complete control over the language developers used to write apps, or completely control the redistribution and percentage of their cut for those apps. It's Apple's product, they can do what they want with it and there are great advantages for it in some cases, but please don't try to deny the fact that it is a closed platform.

A few tidbits from the OSI website that you yourself linked, the first few posted just last week:

OSI wrote:Java is not only the core of the Middleware market, but it is the basis for Google’s Android platform, one of the fastest-growing mobile platforms and a great success story for open source software.

OSI wrote:The OSI has no financial interest in Google itself, but the Android platform is an index case of the success of open source software development

OSI wrote:Specifically, it seems plausible that Apple’s most credible competitor in the mobile market, Android, would be vulnerable to challenge by the patents involved in the CPTN-transaction. The OSI is very concerned that Apple could use once-friendly Novell patents to make it difficult or impossible to create competitive Mobile platforms or mobile applications developed as open source.

Both Apple and Oracle could address these concerns by stipulating fully-paid, world-wide, royalty free licenses to any software covered by an OSI-approved license. But absent such a promise, it would be far too easy for either of them to harm not only a specific open source project (such as Open Manager, a file browser optimized for mobile) or an open platform (such as Android), but the larger open source ecosystem, whose goals of eliminating vendor lock-in are at odds with the de facto result of monopoly: perfect vendor lock-in.

OSI wrote:It is indeed remarkable how well the BSD community has thrived in spite of major proprietary detours, first taken by Sun Microsystems with SunOS and then abandoned when Sun promised to shift to a GPL-based OpenSolaris, and secondly (and presently) maintained by Apple with OSX, which continues to hide anti-features in a source code based that is constantly refreshed with the best that the BSD community has to offer.

Note the references to Android being both open source and an open platform. Also note what OSI claims to be at odds with "open." I imagine that is citation enough?

Fridmarr wrote:Where in the open source definition does it say when you have to make your source code available of a derivative work, under the OSI approved Apache 2.0 license that Android mostly uses? Oh right...never.

The bit where Open Source = Source Code Available, you <redacted>.

Riiiight... so your "theory" is that because Google are complying with the Apache 2 licence when they close the source, that makes it Open Source. The whole point of Apache 2 is that you can re-close the source and you don't have to distribute derivative works under the same licence. That doesn't magically make those closed source work Open Source just because they used to be open.

Honeycomb is closed source. You keep ignoring it. What part of "Please provide a link to the source repository of Honeycomb AKA Android 3" are you not understanding?

I can tattoo the Apache 2.0 licence on my cock, it doesn't magically make it Open Source unless I also give you the goddamn source code.

I'd refute the rest of your argument which would be very easy because you're mistaking read access to source code with write access to the source-code-and-build-management-management-system but give you appear to be bat-shit crazy and incapable of cogently making a point that actually refutes anything I've said so far, I'm giving up.

You keep raising "Honeycomb isn't on a handset" as some pathetic excuse that magically makes Honeycomb.. what? Open Source somehow?

THE FUCKING SOURCE CODE HASN'T BEEN RELEASED. IT ISN'T FUCKING OPEN SOURCE.

Here's the top ten hits for the Google search "honeycomb open source". All ten state that Honeycomb is not Open Source and won't be until the source is released. If you only read one, I'd suggest the Ars Technica article.

Fridmarr wrote:Your code base allows you to incorporate what you want and release it when you want. Google is making a new version and will release the source code with it when it's complete and ready for redistribution.

Yes, and the bits where you release the code are the bits that are Open Source. Currently it is closed source. apache 2 allows you to shift between Open and Closed source models at whim.

Fridmarr wrote:They aren't really doing anything different here than what they've done for other versions, they are just porting in features they released in a derivative work, which clearly follows under their license. Then there is the whole trademarking element which really gives them a whole other level of control.

I never claimed they breached Apache 2. Clearly they haven't for the code they wrote.

There's an open million-dollar question as to whether the Java code they released under Apache 2 was copied from Oracle and re-licensed illegally. Lawyers will sort that one out - if Google lose then Android is pretty much dead as a platform as it will be based on copyright violation and Oracle would be able to demand royalties, penalties or "cease shipping". Given it's Oracle, a case of beer says they'll demand royalties.

Fridmarr wrote:You can't be serious about Apple not being open? Look at your own posts in this thread about porting OSX to other hardware. Can you install any software you want on your IPhone without violating the TOS? You can't even write what you want, in the language you want, nor distribute it how you want. That is a closed platform. You must get permission from Apple for everything, or violate the TOS.

I never said iOS was open in any way. It isn't. It's about as closed as most game console platforms and for similar reasons.

Fridmarr wrote:And this nonsense about flash is just silly, Apple even got caught demoing a "great" app post the flash crackdown, that was flash based. Never mind all the websites that run great flash based apps.

Factually incorrect. They briefly showed screenshots of several websites containing Flash ads where the ads rendered correctly instead of as blue cubes. These screenshots were corrected.

Fridmarr wrote:I'm not complaining that Apple controls their own hardware stack, I'm just saying it's not open. It's nearly as closed as you can possibly be, you can't buy a computer running OSX from just anybody. Microsoft doesn't have to release source code to be more open than Apple, they allow hardware vendors to integrate the binaries with their hardware. I'm not complaining that Apple has complete control over the language developers used to write apps, or completely control the redistribution and percentage of their cut for those apps. It's Apple's product, they can do what they want with it and there are great advantages for it in some cases, but please don't try to deny the fact that it is a closed platform.

iOS is almost completely closed. The development environment is several orders of magnitude more open than is the norm for closed platforms like games consoles - US $99 for full access to the IDE and the App Store. Used to be free for students, no idea if it still is.

You can run the Open Source version of OS X (Darwin) on any hardware you like.

By the way, Google's cut of apps on the Android marketplace is exactly the same as Apple's: 30%. The fact you can install any random piece of shitware from random websites has worked real good for Android so far... How many other phone platforms need AV software?

Everything is there in your last few posts to put it all together. In fact, I think based off the change in your argument, and arguing some rather strange things (really... the development environment?) that maybe you are understanding it now.

Kudos on an entire frothing rant about how Honeycomb isn't open source. You could have just gone to the Google press release, but either way it doesn't matter since I've never argued differently.

You may believe that when a derivative work is created, that if the source code is not released that the base work is no longer open source. OSI and the rest of the open/free consortium would argue differently. Android has had derivative works of probably every single version created without the source code released. That's how Google envisioned providing value to manufacturers, and it has worked quite well. Maybe you could argue with OSI that Apache 2.0, should make the base code line closed when a derivative work's source isn't released, but until you are able to convince the community, Android is going to be considered open source. If you manage to succeed then Android will not have been considered Open Source since long before Honeycomb.

I don't really get what the sticking point is. Is it the fact that Google wrote honeycomb? I mean if Motorola wrote Honeycomb, would you still consider Android open source? You realize that it doesn't matter?

In the meantime, when a new handset version of Android is released, so will the source code in the same way the source for every previous version has been released. It will be, it has always been, in compliance with the licensing, and therefore it is open source. Please try not to get tripped up with branding here.

Knaughty wrote:iOS is almost completely closed.

Should I scream at you demanding you cite a source, or can we now just accept that the obvious truth is obvious?

If you aren't confident about installing an app that is not on ITunes, that's fair. A closed platform sounds ideal for you then. I however, have no issues with that particular freedom. I enjoy the choice to install (for instance) a Gameloft game from their site before it's available on the Market, or the Amazon free app of the day (and sometimes they have some pretty cool ones (PewPew 2 is today's)) to get more value from my device than I could get via the Android Market only.

I also appreciate the ability for new Markets to appear and to compete with the Android Market, to keep things honest.

On a more serious note, can I ask for a clarification (from either/both of you)? I have a basic understanding of the concept of Open Source, but as I'm not in the industry I'm fuzzy on the specifics.

Knaughty, it seems like your argument is that "since they're not providing the source code right now, it's not Open Source." The way I read that, you mean that for a project to be open source it has to be available during the entire development cycle?

That seems a bit unreasonable to me. For one thing, providing the source of an unfinished project probably causes more problems than it solves. Derivatives might be started based on the working source, but changes later in the development cycle might cause those derivatives to become incompatible with the "official" openly available final source. By developing the next generation in-house first, and then publishing the final project under an open license, they avoid that issue.

Similarly, let's say I start a project that I plan on making available as open source once I have it all together and working. Does that count as an open-source project, and at what point? Do I have to make all of the (failed, non-functioning, etc.) revisions before the final working copy available?

I was under the impression that whether something was open-source or not was based on the licensing of the released code. If Android 3.0 (or whatever it is we're talking about, I've totally lost track by now since I don't know the first thing about Honeycomb) isn't finished yet, and isn't released to anybody, what point is there in arguing whether it's open or not? Wouldn't that be determined by the license under which the final project source is published?

I mean, it seems like you could extend that argument to other open source projects. "(Mozilla/RedHat/whomever) hasn't released the source of (Firefox 5/Fedora N+1/Unreleased Next-gen project), therefore it's not open source." That doesn't seem like a valid statement, but I'll admit I'm not very educated in the area of open-source software licensing.